TheLeviathan

Here's what I know....whatever they decide to do: The last @*&*ing thing I want to hear is about "tradition" or "the way it always was" MLB needs to drag anyone attached to that notion kicking and screaming out of the room that makes decisions. MLB needs to be radical.

Personally - Salt Lake City isn't a pro town. It just isn't. I'm not sure Portland should be either. If they expand I'd like to see it be Charlotte and Nashville and go with this format: AL Central: Twins, Cubs, White Sox, Royals, Astros, Rangers, Brewers, Cardinals AL West: A's, Angels, Mariners, Rockies, Dodgers, D-backs, Padres, Giants NL Central: Tigers, Reds, Nashville, Pirates, Guardians, Rays, Blue Jays, Braves NL East: Yankees, Mets, Red Sox, Orioles, Phillies, Nats, Marlins, Charlotte Keep the playoff format. Division winners get byes. Top 4 teams from either division get re-seeded for the first round. Someone send my resume to MLB.

The A's to Vegas thing has been a total clown show. MLB should not be expanding, but they likely will.

100% with you my man. I had the same thoughts about Mauer being a possible "front man" for a limited partner. I said earlier - Crane negotiating with Jim and then Joe publicly saying he "had no idea/ownership wasn't part" or whatever he said.....is either catastrophic incompetence or lies. Neither of which is reassuring. I'm genuinely confused how there are people that still don't think this ownership group is THE problem. The root cause of everything. They usurped the GM at the deadline. They botched the sale. They f'ed up the media deal for decades. They right-sized the payroll. They use what appears to be Chat GPT to message to the public. Other ownership groups might be surmountable....but this one isn't. They're that awful.

With all due respect....I don't know how you post that conversation, verbatim, and then conclude something entirely different. The Pohlads conducted the trade. Decided it needed to happen and ironed out the details. Read those last two sentences between Zulgad and Reusse again if it helps.

Is that due to the nature of baseball or the financial realities of baseball? Because you're drawing a causation where I don't believe there is one.

It's not the reality we all want, but it's the reality we have: If we're going to be bad, having better draft position is one of the few "rewards" for fans. I don't want them to purposely lose, but I will care about this next year. And chances are, those that complain about it, will care a bit too depending upon how the talent shakes out.

I'm inclined to think Correa was a part of it, but yes....the payroll pull was definitely a major factor.

On what basis are we claiming parity?

I think managers have about as much impact as their salaries indicate: not much.

I'm always hesitant to step in these waters because we don't know what the clubhouse is like. But I would suggest one point in favor of this being more of a Correa shot than a Baldelli one is that only one of those guys is gone. Lopez is smart, so it feels like this is more of a note about what is gone rather than encouraging what remains. But I could be totally wrong at that. I think Correa, while a genuine person himself, is the kind of dude that comes off as fake to others. Quick to lecture, quick to climb the high horse, quick to shout down advice from his perch. I think it's easy to perceive that as disingenuous even if it isn't intended that way by Correa himself. That said, ultimately the clubhouse is on the manager and if Baldelli allowed that to fester, he needs to own it as well. It's time for a mass turnover in leadership but like all roads with the 2025 Twins....that leads back to the family cutting the checks. We needed the Pohlads to sell, to change our organizational culture, and usher in a new on-field culture that guys like Keaschall can help set. Alas....we get none of that except for maybe the last one if the kid (and others like him) push hard enough through the other noise.

The argument has been made that bad ownership need not lead to bad baseball. There is a lot of truth to that in many situations. You know where it's also true? The NFL. Most owners are largely irrelevant to what happens on the field. The Colts won Super Bowls with Jim Irsay. The Bengals had a long run of winning seasons with Mike Brown. But sometimes your team is owned by old man Jerry Jones. Or Woody Johnson. Then....that argument about overcoming bad ownership? It stops applying to you. (As Belichick said: "Ready, fire, aim") Sometimes bad ownership is insurmountable. It is the core of the rot. That's the Pohlads. They hired all the failed FOs. They employ all the failed development people. They set the tone of stagnation and mediocrity as long as they make a buck. Stop looking for scapegoats people!

I'm am genuinely baffled by anyone having this stance. But even if you do....last time I checked Falvey didn't hire himself and continue to cut himself a check.

One of my main reasons for being pissed about ownership is the continued stagnation of the front office. The same people that are hiring them will hire their replacement and that gives me Glen Taylor vibes. So I'm with you there.

The reporters aren't trying to spin a narrative. Their job is to report facts. The facts we have are that the Pohalds directly negotiated a trade with Jim Crane. Put aside whether the move was right or good value, the point I made you're contending was that the Pohlads were directly involved at the trade deadline. I don't see how that's disputable unless you're willing to call both Bob NIghtengale and Patrick Reusse liars.

What makes it is how they shuffle IMO. Their approach is more aggressive on both selling and buying. They are willing to take chances. That's what I want to see change.

I guess my point is that given the realities of baseball and ownership, shuffling is going to happen regardless. It's about when and how you approach that shuffle. The feature part for the Brewers vs. the Twins is twofold: 1) they're willing to sell before the clock strikes midnight on a talent's value. They have a sober realization of their ability to contend and aren't afraid to take chances rather than let value wither on the vine and die. 2) They then use those moves to supplement them through both regular development and trades that buy major league talent. They will obviously have misfires, any strategy will. But the moves they've made have been a net gain (significantly IMO) because they're willing to take the approach above. As opposed to the Twins who let Polanco wither. They let Kepler wither. (And as a result, never gave Rooker the requisite ABs) I could go on but I think you get the point I hope. There is a level of, call it what you will: aggression, risk, non-complacency, that their team has and ours lacks.

I don't know what "subtext" that would be. Bob Nightengale isn't some nobody. He reported the owners basically had trade talks where Crane used the Pohlad's sale/budget to get them to give him Correa for nothing. There's no reading into that. That's as direct as I've ever heard any owners get when they employ a GM. You can doubt, but Reusse and NIghtengale? Seems pretty open and shut to me.

How do you think Houston's owner sold the deal? Look, I'm on the record that I don't mind we sold on Correa to get out from the contract before it becomes an albatross..... However, Crane's pitch worked because he preyed on the Pohlad's weaknesses about money and profit. The Pohlads are why that deal happened 100%. They basically negotiated it without Falvey for long stretches. I don't know how much more meddling or forcing you can be than to usurp your GM.

The article makes quite clear that this opinion is false. If it's one you want to hold on to...that's your perogative. But it's not reality. We've been hearing the same line from our GMs for 30 years. I imagine their willingness to take fire from the public is part of what retains their employment even though they aren't accomplishing much on the field.

Here's the thing....Nailor has a hand injury, Addison has a suspension, JJ has been nursing something all training camp, and Hockenson has a lengthy history. Bring back Brandon Powell, try Gabe Davis or Amari Cooper, Nelson Agoholor. Just bring in an experienced reciever with the issue going on. That's where I'm at.

Well, the other poster admitted to not reading the article. I don't think there is much ambiguity here. Also...according to Reusse it was Jim Pohlad, not Joe, who was in conversations with Crane. (Confirming the report) So a few things: 1) The Pohlads were absolutely directly involved and 2) Either they don't talk to each other (incompetence) or Joe is lying (Possible, his public facing communication doesn't have a sterling track record).

The Athletic article confirms it was an ownership move almost exclusively. At comically incompetent levels.

Ok, all of that sounds great from a practical standpoint, but this reaction isn't practical. It's, by definition, emotional. It's something you care about. I think you are attempting well meaning advice here but you happen to be mistaken. Let me try to explain by analogy what I think is wrong about this advice: A young, naive Lev married a wonderful woman. But like all relationships, arguments would happen. Mostly because young Lev was a dude and dudes do stupid things. When said things happened, and Mrs. Lev was justifiably angry our young Lev used to think a wise strategy was to say "relax". (Married men out there are cringing now. I feel you brothers) I can tell you as an older, wiser (and still married!) Lev.....such advice is not a good tactic. It ignores the justifiable feelings someone else has, offers no real advancement of the issues at hand, and can be interpreted as condescending even though it isn't meant to. Your argument is the "relax" of sports ownership/fandom. People are reacting and responding in a justifiable way. They engage with the content because it is a big part of the thing they enjoy. Those press releases and comments are pretty important. Just ignoring them isn't really an option in a practical sense. Fans just found out something they thought was happening wasn't going to happen and those press releases are the closest thing to an answer for "why?". And fans have every right to ask "why?" and be pissed off when the answers they get aren't very good. They don't want to hear "relax" in that moment. They want to be pissed. In this case...I say let the people who are pissed off be pissed off. Maybe there is some small chance they'll be heard by the clowns who need to hear it.

My issue with Mike earlier is the same I have here: we shouldn't be lecturing each other about how to be fans. Everyone is going to respond in their own way. If you tune it out and try to focus on the game....good for you. If you want to rage at the stupidity of the Pohlads....rage away.